The Merchant of Venice: The ending is happy, all win, integrity and the bottom lose
The play is named "The Merchant of Venice", which refers to Antonio in the play, and the main line of the natural story revolves around Antonio, but the person who impressed me the most after reading the whole book is Shylock. Portia's wisdom is admirable, and the friendship between Antonio and Bassanio is very emotional, but will Sherlock's fate really make everyone clap their hands?
At least I don't think so, Sherlock's argument sounds cruel and merciless, but which sentence is not well-argued and loud? I even wondered how strong his determination to put Antonio to death was, and how deep the suffering and humiliation he had suffered would be. After I read through the entire script, this perception grew stronger, and I even wanted to wonder if The Merchant of Venice really counted as a comedy.
Countless commentators have said that Shakespeare used Sherlock's reflection to attack the value of the supremacy of money, shaping the image of Sherlock as a mercenary, ruthless usurer. But I also have to ask, when we accept such a fact, have we ever thought about the reasons behind it? Is there anyone willing to live on the fringes of society for no reason, under the double compulsion of scorn and exclusion? Did Shylock desperately want Antonio's life because of his cruelty? Apparently not.
"Mr. Antonio, many times you have scolded me on the exchanges, saying that I have exploited for profit, and I have always swallowed my anger, shrugged my shoulders, and did not argue with you, because enduring persecution is a characteristic of our nation. You call me a pagan, a murderous dog, spit on my Jewish robes, just because I'm using my own money to get a few interest. In fact, for the Jews of society at that time, many occupations were forbidden. The business of lending money for profit is really forced to do so to a certain extent.
The burden that fate imposed on Sherlock was not just to put him in the shackles of race and discrimination, another tragedy followed, and his only relative in this world, his daughter Jessica, ran away, with a large sum of his wealth, and eloped with a Christian! Blood, faith and wealth, these things that supported Sherlock's life were stripped alive, so why didn't he feel angry?
The Duke, after unsuccessfully asking Sherlock to show mercy to Antonio, said: "I have sent someone to ask Perario, a learned Doctor, to try this case on our behalf; if he does not come today, I have the right to declare an adjournment of the sentence." "We can guess that even without Portia's ingenious verdict, these countless supporters of Antonio would have done everything they could to save Antonio. If nothing else, take the story itself, why didn't Portia drill a loophole in the law? "When cutting flesh, if a drop of Christian blood is shed, your land and property, according to venetian law, will be confiscated."
Isn't this the violence and power of the majority? How could Sherlock have won the law when the law was imperfect and the ultimate right to interpret the law was actually in the hands of the nobility? Of course, Sherlock was trapped by money, driven mad by hatred, blinded by despair and desire, tightly wrapped in ragged clothes, a tragic one-way street that was bound by circumstances and at the same time he chose.
Whether or not I over-interpreted The Merchant of Venice, there must be some tragic elements in the play. Let me define it, the Merchant of Venice is neither sad nor happy, but that doesn't stop it from being a great play. A thousand readers have a thousand interpretations, and that may be the charm of a great play.